The Pontifical Ruthenian College, 1897–1915

Between Roman Universalism and National Consciousness

The Collegio Ruteno in Rome was founded, in 1897, to educate Ruthenian-Ukrainian seminarians from Austrian Galicia in a Catholic universalist spirit (Romanitas). The Ruthenian College eventually fulfilled its purpose, but its early years were characterized by mediocre leadership and burnout among the superiors, and factionalism among the students. College life was played out against the backdrops of political-religious events in Rome and in Galicia. Rather than simply imbuing Ukrainians with Romanitas, the College also brought Ukrainian problems to Rome. 

Very little has been written about the College’s early years perhaps because of the many tragedies and difficulties that occurred. The few works that exist are quasi-hagiographical chronologies that scrupulously avoided controversies. Based on archival sources, this paper seeks to present a contextualized view of the its early history and to reveal aspects passed over by its official chroniclers.

 

Ruthenians in Urbe

            In 1596, a portion of the Orthodox Kyivan Metropolia entered into full communion with the Roman Church (Union of Brest). The same year, two Ruthenian seminarians were sent to Rome to study at the Greek College for three years. One of them, Yosyf Veliamyn Rutsky, later become Kyivan Metropolitan. He obtained four places for his seminarians at the College in 1615, expanded to six in 1623. Thenceforth to 1803, when the College was closed during the Napoleonic occupation, thirty-nine Ruthenian seminarians graduated from the Greek College, including most of the Uniate hierarchy.

Under Austria, Ruthenian seminarians studied at Propaganda Fide’s Theatine College in Lemberg (Lviv). But in 1784, Joseph II abolished the College and founded a Greek-Catholic Major Seminary. After the Greek College was reopened, in 1845, the Austrian Government retuned the Theatine Fund to Propaganda, which facilitated the return of Ruthenian seminarians to Rome. As the proportion of Ruthenians within that College increased, its name was changed to Pontificium Collegium Graecorum et Ruthenorum. From 1845 to 1897, sixty-two Ruthenian seminarians graduated, including the future Cardinal Sylvester Sembratovych, the spiritus movens behind the foundation of a separate college. Besides the Lviv Seminary, Joseph II also founded a college in Vienna known as the Barbareum, next to Saint Barbara’s, the Ruthenian Church in Vienna. Gifted seminarians boarded there and studied at Vienna University.

 

Their Own College

The creation of a Ruthenian seminary in Rome was primarily the result of political-religious issues in Austria. Until the late nineteenth century, the Greek-Catholic clergy was the elite class in Galician Ruthenian society. In the 1840s, the Lviv Greek-Catholic Seminary was one of centres of the Ruthenian national movement. But by the 1870s, both the Lviv and the Vienna seminaries had become nests of Moscophilism, and state and church officials demanded their reform. This was to be one of Sylvester Sembratovych’s primary tasks. His crowning achievement was holding a Provincial Council (the Lviv Synod). The Synod called for the reorganization of the seminary system and praised clerical celibacy. The married clergy saw it as an attempt to assimilate the Ruthenians to the Latin Church and Polish culture.

The Austrian Government had been wanting to suppress the Barbareum in Vienna since 1874. The college was abruptly closed in 1893 after Sembratovych was attacked by Moscophile students (including 2 seminarians). In compensation, the Ministry of Religion and Education agreed to send six more seminarians to the Greek College, bringing the total to ten). The Government also promised to establish seminaries in Lviv’s suffragan eparchies of Przemyśl and Stanyslaviv.

With Leo XIII’s Unionist reforms in full swing, the Greek-Ruthenian College needed a larger building just at the time when Ruthenians were enrolling there in greater numbers. Their increased number provoked conflicts with the College's other nationalities such as Italo-Greeks and especially Romanians. As a result, Sembratovych and his suffragans began to lobby for the creation of a college exclusively for Ruthenians. In his dying year, Sembratovych convinced Propaganda Fide to build a new 4-story building with room for 16 students. It was adjacent to the Church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus in Piazza Madonna dei Monti, where the Ruthenian procurature had stood since the 1640s. Emperor Franz Joseph paid 100,000 Lire, Propaganda loaned the College 42,301, and the rest of the total 181,807 Lire was paid by benefactors.

On 18 December 1897, Leo XIII issued the bull Paternam benevolentiam, founding the institution specifically for the Greek-Catholic Ruthenians of the Metropolitan Province of Lviv-Halych (Later, Hungarian eparchs also sent seminarians). In the College, Sembratovych saw one of his principal goals accomplished but he was too ill to attend its opening and died of cancer the following year. In his stead he deputized Bishop Konstantyn Chekhovych of Przemyśl to perform the inaugural blessing on 19 December 1897. Twelve seminarians transferred from the Greek College.

 

Jesuit Superiors (1897–1904)

Sembratovych settled for the Jesuits of the Roman Province, who were already administering the Greek College of St. Athanasius, but only until the Basilian Order could assume command. The Jesuits were very unpopular among Ukrainians in Austria, and tensions between them and their pupils had already shown themselves ta the Greco-Ruthenian College. As a result, Ukrainians were reluctant study in Rome. Another difficulty was that the Italian Jesuits were not familiar with the Byzantine-Ruthenian Rite nor with the Ukrainian language, and culture. They were unable to identify challenges faced by the Greek-Catholic clergy and did not sympathize with their national concerns.

At the beginning of the academic year, the autumn of 1897, Jesuit superiors transferred from the Greek to the Ruthenian College and the Greek College was entrusted to Benedictines. The Jesuit superiors consisted in three priests: a Rector, a Minister, and a Spiritual Director. Two or three Jesuit brothers also served as cooks and sacristans. In addition, lay servants were engaged as porters, cleaners, and waiters. The Minister responsible for all matters concerning discipline and provisions. the spiritual director offered Confessions and spiritual talks, counselling, and preached the annual retreat. Unlike the Greek-College, seminarians worshipped liturgically in the Byzantine Rite only. Nevertheless, outside of the liturgy parallel disciplines were maintained: Latin for the Jesuits and the servants, and Byzantine for the Ukrainians. The Jesuits prayed privately except for the Spiritual Director, who administered Benediction at the end of the day according to the Latin Ritual. Dual disciplines meant that, on certain days, the superiors were feasting while the seminarians were fasting, and vice versa. In addition, the Jesuits also passed on their Latin-style non-liturgical practices and devotions to their charges.

College food was local and of a high standard. The Jesuits maintained a regimented system of meals in which the number and kind of foods was regulated according to the rank of the liturgical feast. In addition to Latin and Ruthenian Feasts, the feasts of major Jesuit Saints were also commemorated, at which the Superiors were served coffee with rosolio (liqueurs) and deserts. Meals were held in silence with readings from spiritual books, as was the custom in all Catholic seminaries. The Superiors took their daily recreation separately.

The first Rectors were Rodolfo Isolani (1897–1899) and Eugenio Polidori (1899–1903). Isolani published books on spirituality and Marian sodalities. Polidori published on the history of Italy (1886), on the exclusion of religion from Italian public education (1892), and a refutation of von Harnack’s rationalist exegesis (The Fourth Gospel, 1903). It is likely that Polidori was appointed to impose stricter discipline, as he appears to have been more austere than others. For example, he discontinued the traditional fave dei morti on All Souls Day, to the disappointment of staff and students alike. 

Polidori’s heart was at the Civiltà Cattolica where he often lunched. After four years, he was appointed superior of that apostolate. On 4 October 1903, Father Giovanni Maria Nobili Vitelleschi (1853–1908) was transferred from the elite Mondragone College to succeed him. The last and most popular Jesuit rector of the college has been airbrushed out of the College’s history by Ukrainian chroniclers. Vitelleschi, was well known for his pedagogical skills. He was a musician and tolerant in discipline. One of his compositions had been admired by Giacomo Puccini. In November, he restored the fave dei morti to everyone’s delight. He made various improvements to the college, including installing electric lighting and buying a pianoforte. He was also the only rector whose biography was published.

The Minister of the College was Father Galeassi. He kept the college chronicle meticulously and oversaw the finances and the day to day running of the instruction. After it was announced that the Jesuits were withdrawing, he lost his initiative and forgot to arrange for festive meals on several Byzantine Rite feast days. In the last month of the Jesuit administration, he was replaced, due to exhaustion. In December 1902 the Spiritual director Pietro Borselli became ill (dying 4 months later) and had to be replaced temporarily by Giovanni Soriani and Pietro Castelloni, and permanently by Pio De Mandato from May 1903.

The Jesuits accepted the charge over the Ruthenians seminarians but, as their chronicle reveals, their concerns were with their Order’s affairs. They prayed privately and continued to teach and hear confessions in other colleges and churches. Guests at the College were mainly Italian Jesuits in transit or on retreat, and alumni from their institutions such as the elite Mondragone college near Frascati. In turn, the College superiors lodged at other Jesuit institutions to rest or make their own retreats

In July 1904, Cardinal Gotti informed the Jesuit General that the College was to be entrusted to the Ukrainian Basilians in November. The College Superiors were officially informed on this on 28 July. On 9 October, shortly after the seminary had returned from summer vacation, Vitelleschi left for his new assignment, leaving the Minister and Spiritual Director in charge until the Basilians took office. The remaining two Jesuits left at the end of the October 1904.

 

Ukrainian teacher and Prefects

The Greek College had to engage a priest of their nationality to teach the Ruthenian seminarians their particular liturgical ritual and music. This arrangement was maintained at the Ruthenian College, but the priest also had an additional duty of celebrating Divine services for the seminarians. The only priest in Rome was the bishops’ procurator, Vasyl Levytsky, who was already functioning in this role at the Greek College. After only a short time, however, he stepped on toes by complaining, on behalf of Bishop Chekhovych, that Jesuits were introducing Latin devotions to the seminarians. By the autumn of 1902, he had lost interest in the College and had to be replaced by Aleksander Ulytsky, who abandoned his post without warning after serving only five months. The new Procurator, Mykhailo Jatskovsky, took over the role in April 1903. On Sundays and feast days, Bulgarian Bishop Lazar Mladenov celebrated Divine Liturgy in the church for the seminarians. Otherwise, services were held in the domestic chapel, especially in winter.

            Given the Jesuits’ reserve, greater influence was exercised over the students by the prefect (a student priest) or the vice-prefect. The Prefects were a go-between between staff and students and wrote the instructions for seminarians in their native tongue. In 1903, Ivan Lutsyk was named prefect after his ordination, and seminarian Yosyf Kotsylovsky was made vice-prefect who was known as the beadle.

 

Basilians (1904–1915)

The Jesuits had been charged, in 1882, with reforming the decadent Basilians into zealous reformers that would educate a clerical and lay elite in a loyal Catholic spirit. By the end of the nineteenth century, Government and Church officials were clamouring for reformed Basilians to take charge of the Greek-Catholic seminary system. In Ruthenian-Ukrainian society, there were heated debates over the role of the Jesuits, which hastened to end their direct involvement in the Greek-Catholic Church. 

Some of the Ruthenian clergy thought it should have been given to Basilians from the beginning. Already in September 1902, the conflict between the Bishops’ procurator and the Jesuits led Sembratovych’s successor, Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky, to suggest that members of his own Order might be more suited to run the College. The following summer, the Prefect of Propaganda Fide asked Sheptytsky and the Jesuit Provincial of the Basilians, Father Peter Bapst, if the Basilians were prepared to do so. Sheptytsky dithered for a year, to the annoyance of Bapst, who demanded a decision. In July 1904, Sheptytsky finally agreed, and Bapst accepted on the Basilians’ behalf.

Bapst consulted Sheptytsky on the choice of personnel. He first proposed priests who had studied in Rome and knew Italian, Luka Ivantsiv as Rector and Pavlo Demchuk as Spiritual Director. A brother scholastic was to serve as prefect and a lay brother as cook. Before the decision could be made, the Jesuits resigned from the Basilian reform and the new superiors had to make their own selection. Arseniy Lozynsky was selected over Ivantsiv (fortuitously, it turned out) and he and Demchuk arrived in Rome on 14 October 1904. For two weeks, they observed the workings of the college under the two remaining Jesuits. The Basilians took charge on 1 November 1904.

Like their predecessors, the Basilians stood somewhat aloof from their diocesan seminarians although they were more austere than Jesuits, for instance, in diet. Nevertheless, were unable to deal with the nationalistic conflicts between seminarians. The stress caused Lozynsky to lose his health and, by the end of the academic year, the new Basilian Provincial, Platonid Filas, proposed that he be replaced by Demchuk. Propaganda would not permit this because, as spiritual director, Demchuk had been privy to the seminarians’ private faults. This would constitute a violation of the canonical separation between the internal and the external forums. The Basilian Provincial Council recommended Adrian Davyda, superior of Drohobych. Filas presented the candidate and Cardinal Gotti appointed him rector after obtaining Metropolitan Sheptytsky’s approval.

Father Davyda had a stronger character but was unable to resolve the conflict between the different national tendencies. In June 1907 a group of seminarians complained to the Congregation of about the tensions within the College. Davyda favoured the majority Ukrainophiles and tried to ban Moscophile seminarians, but his proposed rules were not approved by the Congregation.

Father Demchuk’s health also began to fail, and he was recalled to Galicia and replaced with Ivantsiv in March 1908. Luka Ivantsiv suffered from mania and severe scruples and began to complain incessantly to Propaganda about the rector. In July 1908, he had a complete mental collapse and was confined to a religious house in Ancona, where he died.

To resolve the situation, Filas proposed to replace Davyda with Lazar Berezovsky, who had been student prefect in the Lviv Seminary and superior of the Basilian community and press in Zhovkva. Metropolitan Sheptytsky suggested that Davyda remain for a time and later be recalled for health reasons, since Ivantsiv’s accusations had been exaggerated. Gotti asked Father Filas to do just that, but Davyda did not return to Rome so, on 23 September 1908, Berezovsky was named rector.

Lazar Berezovsky’s tenure, from 1908 until the closure of the College in 1915, brought peace and stability to the College. By 1910, the superiors were adding the title, “ad S. Josaphat” to the name of the College, a title which replaced the designation “Ruteno” in 1932. In July 1910, Berezovsky prepared a fresh draft of the College rules, which were approved by Pius X ad experimentum in September 1911. The following year, the esteemed pedagogue Teodoziy Halushchynsky was named spiritual director. During this period, the College rectors became consultants to the Roman Curia on Ruthenian-Ukrainian affairs. 

 

National Identity

Indoctrinating the young Ruthenian-Ukrainians with Roman Universalism was difficult, since their hearts and minds were oriented toward their native land. The principal question among the Ruthenians was national identity and national rights within the Empire. Indeed, this question was the principal problem in Austrian politics of the time. In the year of thew College’s opening, the nationalities question led to a parliamentary crisis and the fall of the government. And a month before the opening, a group of seminarians protested the Propaganda that devotions at the college should be in their own language.

There were two main tendencies of Ruthenian national identity in Galicia: Ukrainophile and Russophile (the Russophiles, in turn, were divided between Old Ruthenophoiles, who were basically church traditionalists, and Moscophiles). Moscophiles saw themselves as a branch of Russian imperial culture; Ukrainophiles saw themselves as part to the culture of Little Rus from Russian Ukraine. In addition, Ruthenians struggled against the assimilation program by the Polish ruling classes. 

Moscophiles were religiously conservative but pro-Orthodox and politically pro-Russian. Ukrainophiles were ideological liberals some of whom gravitated toward anticlericalism and socialism. At first, the Greek-Catholic hierarchy favour one or the other. The student prefects were ordered to write instructions in the neutral phonetic script used by Greek-Catholic chanceries, which was neither Church Slavonic nor vernacular Ukrainian. Many of the Moscophile seminarians belonged to the Lviv Archeparchy because Metropolitan Sheptytsky had not yet made up his mind on the issue. In 1902, he issued a pastoral letter to his clergy, admonishing them not to bicker over national identity. And Fathers Ivantsiv and Demchuk had been proposed for the College because they were neutral, while the majority of Basilians were Ukrainophiles.

In May 1905, the simmering tensions between the factions exploded. The first-year alumni were due to swear the oath that they would be ordained in celibacy. When the Secretary of Propaganda came to receive their oath, five out of eight had scruples about the contents of Alexander VII’s bull, which had been read in the refectory the day before. Rolleri told them that everything would be clarified by the rector but Lozynsky was unable to provide a convincing explanation and had to call for backup from his deputy. Demchuk argued that the archaic contents of the bull was not binding, only the oath. Lozynsky was unable to cope and confined himself to his room. Solemnities were cancelled and a tense atmosphere hung over the college. Lozynsky tried to lay the blame others and sought to expel the leaders of both factions, including the future Bishop Kotsylovsky, the student prefect and a leader of the Ukrainophiles.

Meanwhile, both factions wrote to the Pope and to Cardinal Gotti. The first Basilian chronicler of the College wrote that the Pope threatened to close the college unless harmony was restored. In fact, the Pope’s Secretary of State, Cardinal Merry del Val, called Cardinal Gotti of Propaganda to discuss the situation, but did not propose any drastic measures. Lozynsky assured Propaganda that harmony had been restored but he had lost control and was allowed to leave gracefully, in October 1905.

The conflict simmered quietly for the next two years. Rector Davyda allowed Ukrainian newspapers but forbade the Moscophile Galichanin and wrote to the bishops not to send any more Moscophile seminarians. Lviv Archeparchy ignored him and sent two out of four. The Ukrainophile party gained a permanent foothold in the 1907 Austrian elections. Metropolitan Sheptytsky began to favour the Ukrainophiles and isolate the Moscophiles. The Rector did the same at the College. In 1906, he expelled four seminarians and, in December 1907, dismissed the leader of the Moscophiles, Ivan Kozorovsky. In March 1908, Davyda attempted to enshrine the ban on Moscophile seminarians in the College rules. Although his draft was rejected his successor’s (approved in 1911) included “inciting political discord” as grounds for expulsion. The national identity conflict was never mentioned in the chronicle after 1906 and the College appears to have avoided any reverberations from the fierce battle waged at the Lviv seminary, in February 1912, which resulted in its closing for several months. At the beginning of that year, several seminarians left the Ruthenian College rather than take the mandatory celibacy oath envisioned in the new rules.

Father Davyda was credited with having given the College a Ukrainian character. Thenceforth it became a place to visit Ukrainian hierarchs, clergy, and pilgrims, as well as leading intellectual figures such as Mykhailo Hrushevsky, Vadym Scherbakivsky, and Modest Sosenko. Metropolitan Sheptytsky made annual visits and Bishop Soter Ortynsky was given a grand send off on his way to the United States to become the first Greek-Catholic bishop in the Americas. 

Despite their Ukrainian focus, students participated in the principal Roman holidays (such as All Saints and All Souls and Corpus Domini) and annual festivities such as the anniversary of the College’s founder, Pope Leo XIII. On occasion, they spoke with Pope Leo and more often with Pius X at private audiences. Each year, superiors and students celebrated the onomastic, birthday, and regnal anniversaries of Emperor Franz Joseph, and brought greetings to the Austro-Hungarian embassy. Seminarians went to the Vatican to see visiting monarchs such as Britain’s Edward VII and Germany’s Wilhelm II. They took part in the mourning for the death of Leo XIII and celebrated the election and coronation of Pius X. The college chronicler also recorded the rector and students attending a rally at the French College to protest the anti-clerical laws, in 1907.

On 28 June 1914, the Basilian chronicler recorded their shock and disappointment at the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife. Ukrainians considered the Austrian heir to the throne sympathetic to their cause. This event and the ensuing First World war completely eclipsed the death of Pius X and the election of Benedict XV, which were passed over by the chronicler.

 

Celibacy

The second major issue at the College was mandatory celibacy, which was tightly connected with the question of national identity. Pressure from the Roman Curia to promote clerical celibacy was looked on as a Polish plot to decapitate one of the core Ukrainian institutions. Ukrainians looked up their married priestly class, highly engaged in national affairs, as a cornerstone of their national movement. And many seminarians were themselves sons of priests. The Papal Legate had attempted to favour celibacy at the 1891 Lviv Synod, prompting fierce opposition from the clergy. 

Some Ukrainian seminarians were reluctant to study in Rome because they had to swear the oath prescribed by Urban VIII and Alexander VII to remain in celibacy. In addition, before receiving a doctorate, they had to have been ordained a deacon. Many chose to return home at their end of their fourth year of theology, without a doctorate, so they could be married before being ordained.

The Jesuit Rectors took a very moderate approach to the issue. Their philosophy was that it was better to encourage voluntary celibacy than force the seminarians. The Jesuits allowed the old oaths to fallen into disuse. Father Polidori had wanted to make the oaths into partial promises because the Ukrainian bishops were more concerned with forced celibacy than with the normative married clergy. Yet, Propaganda Fide ordered him to bring the oath back int practice. Polidori had to call the seminarians together to inform them of the decision. In addition, on 31 May 1900, he gave them a long talk about the oath and the educational and financial benefits of studying in Rome. He also called each seminarian to his room to have a personal discussion about the oath. Most were still reluctant but 12 finally took the oath and two left. The following year, everybody accepted the oath without protest. Polidori continued to promote celibacy as a free choice because he believed that a Roman education was already exerting a powerful influence in that direction.

The debate over the status of the celibacy oath considerably delayed approval the college rules. After approving a draft, on 12 July 1910, Pius X added the proviso that no one was to be formally admitted unless they promised to live in celibacy. Nevertheless, the oath could be delayed for a year after their arrival. In July 1912, Cardinal Gotti ordered that anyone seeking to prolong the oath beyond a year had to be sent home.

 

College Life

The course of theological studies lasted four years. Ukrainians were slightly older than many of their other Roman counterparts because the Austrian authorities required them to complete gymnasium before entering the seminary. The pontifical education system was stricter than in Austria and mature seminarians found it difficult to accept being deprived of previously held freedoms. The seminarians spoke Ukrainian and Polish among themselves but very little Italian, leading Vitelleschi to remark: “In an attempt to be understood, I spoke to them in Trastevere (Roman) dialect and Germanize the endings.”

The academic year began on 1 November. New students wore secular attire for six months or a year, until they swore their oath. After this they were clothed in the blue college cassock with a yellow sash, the Ukrainian national colours, chosen by Sembratovych. Correspondence with outsiders was discouraged except with family, their bishop, and benefactors. During the month of May, each seminarian had to preach a short practice sermon in his native language. Inside College, they were to keep silent in corridors and required permission had from the prefect or beadle to speak with other seminarians. Conversations were limited to 4 to 5 minutes and then only at the student’s door, as they were forbidden from entering their rooms. During free time, they were permitted to speak with others in common room and to go for walks but only in pairs. Cash was to be deposited with the rector. Seminarians were permitted to bathe weekly but not more, except during vacation when they stayed near the sea and groups went swimming daily.

The daily schedule was virtually identical to that of other Roman Colleges. Awards were handed out annually to the best students at Propaganda Fide College. During their last year, seminarians were to dedicate an hour daily to studying the liturgical services and Church Slavonic. Those who remained for higher studies, beyond the fourth year, could be ordained in Rome after taking ordination exams from the Vicariate of Rome. From 1897 to 1915, the Bulgarian Bishop performed these ordinations.

Although it had an historical connection, Piazza Madonna die Monti was not particularly suited for seminary life due to the clamour in the streets. In the piazza, fish, meat, and fruit mongers sold their wares in the morning. At night and into the early morning hours, revellers shouted and sang, accompanied by mandolin and guitar. Father Vitelleschi, whose window faced the Piazza degli Zingari, compared the atmosphere disparagingly to Naples. The Roman climate and diet did not agree with all the seminarians or even the superiors, and some returned home for health reasons. Each year, the college left Rome for the summer. The Jesuits had arranged to rent the seminary in Tivoli. Gita or outings were organized regularly for sightseeing and exercise.

 

The First World War

On 28 July 1914, the College chronicler recorded Austria’s declaration of war on Serbia, when the seminary was still on vacation. They returned to Rome, as usual, in October, but no new diocesan seminarians arrived that year, only three Basilian scholastics, who had been forced to study abroad due to the Russian occupation of Galicia. The College celebrated Christmas but there was to be no Easter because, once Italy entered the war on the Entente side, 8 May 1915, the Austrian Embassy informed its subjects they they must leave the country. On 9 and 10 May, the superiors and eleven seminarians left via Zurich for Vienna, where they were met by Father Filas. The diocesans went to a temporary seminary in Kromeriž, Moravia, run by Father Kotsylovsky. (Among them was future Archbishop Ivan Buchko, who was ordained a priest in Kromeriž. From 1942 until his death in 1974, he resided at the new College building on the Janiculum.) Father Halushchynsky took the Basilian scholastics to a seminary near Vienna owned by the Verbite order. They all returned home once the Russians retreated from Galicia.

Father Berezovsky retuned to direct the College when it was reopened, in 1921. At that time, Ukrainian identity and self-determination became a major issue. To eliminate the title “Ruthenian” but without adopting “Ukrainian” which was banned in Galicia (under Polish rule), the name was changed to “Pontifical College of Saint Josaphat.”

Both Berezovsky and Halushchynsky were destined to spend a lifetime in the Eternal City. Berezovsky served as rector for a second time from in 1921 to 1925 and returned to Rome as a General Counsellor of the Basilian Curia from 1932 to 1946. Halushchynsky became Spiritual Director for a second time in 1931 and served in that position until his appointment as Basilian Superior General, in 1949. Both men died in 1952.

I am very grateful to my friends and colleagues Father Yeronim Hrim, OSBM, Father Joseph Koczera, SJ, and Dr Gianfranco Armando, who lent assistance and advice on this topic.

Presented on 15 December 2023  the international academic conference I collegi per stranieri a Roma, 1850–1915, hosted by the Instituto Nazionale per i Studi Romani. Publication forthcoming in February 2024.

Vatican "Secret" Archive changed to "Apostolic"

ASV consultation hall as it was in the 1990s, before modernization

The Holy See announced today (28 October), the the official name of the Archivium Secretum Vaticanum (Vatican Secret Archive) is changed to Archivium Apostolicum Vaticanum (Vatican Apostolic Archive). In a motu proprio letter dated 22 October, Pope Francis explained that he was ordering the change in nomenclature after consulting close advisers and the Archive's Prefect. The papal letter, which alludes to "a vigorous and firm hope for progress" (no doubt in historical sciences and accessibility to the archival collections) provides a cursory history of the institution, emphasising that, over time, it has undergone various changes in structure and name. During one period, it was indeed known as the Apostolic Archive. From about 1646 it has been called Secretum (or Privy)  to distinguish it from archives with more public and civic administrative functions. The Letter argues that, in recent years, the understanding of the Latin term secretum has been lost among the general public [but not by scholars ed.] and the name has given rise to various erroneous impressions and caricatures (contained in popular literature and films). In 1881, Pope Leo XIII opened the papal archive to international scholars. Thenceforth, each Pontiff extended the chronological limit of constable materials. In 1985, John Paul II released documentation to the end of the pontificate of Benedict XV(1922). Benedict XVI opened the materials of the pontificate of Pius XI (to February 1939). Earlier this year, Francis announced that the coveted papers of Pius XII's reign (to October 1958) would be released on 2 March, the anniversary of the latter pontificate. The Vatican Archive is a collection of several historical archives of princely families, Roman Curial departments, and papal nunciatures and delegations. Its superiors and staff are experts specialised in archival sciences and church history. The Archive also offers a course with a diploma in archival studies. The announcement took many by surprise, even within the institution. One wonders whether the well-known abbreviation for citations "ASV" exclusive to the Vatican Archive, will now be changed to "AAV", an abbreviation common to other collections.

Benedict XV in Search of Peace for Ukraine

presentation at international conference 
Papa Giacomo della Chiesa nel mondo dell'inutile strage
at Fondazione per le Scienze Religiose "Giovanni XXIII"

Bologna, 3–5 November 2016.

This is not the time or the place to thoroughly examine in what manner the Vatican manifested sympathy for the idea of the Ukrainian state, and what was the motive behind this sympathy. This shall be done by the historian who, at the proper time, gains access to the sources which are certainly to be found in the Vatican and other places.

— Petro Karmansky, “Cardinal Gasparri and Ukraine,” (1934)

Born during Benedict XV’s Reign

There is no peace for Ukraine, not a hundred years after it fleetingly appeared on the world stage, nor twenty-five years after having finally achieved independence, following centuries of the oblivion of imperial subjugation. One hundred years ago, Benedict XV addressed to the world the words “nations do not die.” Sometimes, however, nations are born only with great difficulty, as in Ukraine, whose cause did not provoke any moralizing campaign of sympathy from the Western powers. During the pontificate of Benedict XV, Ukraine was born as a state but died as a nation that never enjoyed a day of peace. Nonetheless, Pope Della Chiesa took up the cause of Ukraine and strove, with significant gestures, to bring peace to “his dear Ukrainians.”

Rus – Ruthenia – Ukraine

 “Nation” is a modern concept. There is no strict necessity for any given nation to come into being. But the process of national awakening among certain ethnic groups is an historical fact. Ukrainian national consciousness emerged in the nineteenth century, based on various precedents. In the ninth century, The Norse Ruriks, who ruled over Slavic tribes surrounding the Dnipro river, formed a state called Rus’ with it capital in Kyiv. The people of Kyivan-Rus eventually constituted themselves into three nations: Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. After the Mongol conquest in the thirteenth century, the political and cultural inheritance of Kyivan-Rus passed to Lithuania, Poland, and Muscovy. The people called themselves Rusyn or Ruski in the plural. Westerners began to refer to those in Poland-Lithuania as Rutheni.

Prince Volodymyr (or Vladimir) had accepted Byzantine Christianity in 988. After the Great Schism, the Orthodox Church of Rus continued to maintain some contact with the Roman Apostolic See. In 1253 Pope Innocent IV sent his legate with a kingly crown to Danylo prince of Halych, the last independent Rus principality. Most of south-western Rus passed to Lithuania but Halych was conquered in 1367 by the Polish King. North-Eastern Rus became Muscovy.

In 1439, Isidore, Metropolitan of Kyiv, signed the act of union of the Roman and Byzantine Churches at the Council of Florence, and was made a cardinal. But his efforts to make the union a reality were met with opposition at home. In 1595, the bishops of the Kyivan Metropolia signed another act of union with the Roman See. This “Union of Brest” only united portion of the Kyivan Church, while another portion remained in communion with the Orthodox world. The Kyivan Metropolitans received patriarchal-like powers from the Roman Pontiff. Yet, despite opposition from Roman Catholics and Orthodox, the Uniate Church flourished in Poland-Lithuania, and Pope Urban VIII told the Ruthenians that he hoped to convert the entire East through them.

As Muscovy, renamed Russia, encroached upon Poland-Lithuania, the Uniates were forcibly amalgamated to the Russian Orthodox Church. After the final partition in 1795, the Uniate Church was destined to survive only Austrian Galicia (named for the old Halych principality). Empress Maria Theresa abolished the term “Uniate” as pejorative, and replaced it with “Greek Catholic,” on par with her Roman Catholic subjects.

With the awakening of the nations after the French Revolution, the Ruthenians also began to assert national-ethnic consciousness. The Ukrainian risorgimento began in Austrian Galicia and was led by the Greek-Catholic clergy, in the absence of their secular nobility, which had adopted a Polish consciousness. As the popoli italici of various dialects and principalities, became the nazione italiana, so the Ruthenians of the Austrian and Russian Empires came to see themselves as a single nation. And as Italia was once only a geographical term, so the geographical designation Ukraïna was adopted as a national descriptive, to distinguish the nation from Russia.

Pro and Contra Relations with Ukraine

            Until the First World War, the Russian Empire was the most powerful state in central-eastern Europe and represented the determining factor papal policy. Viewing the region’s political and religious futures in the Russian context, Leo XIII had inaugurated a diplomatic outreach to the Russia and, at the same time, supported religious “unionism,” as opposed to Latin missionary proselytism, as a means for eventual ecclesial reunion. The policy aimed to strengthen and support Eastern Catholicism, especially among the Ruthenians, so that they would become missionaries to nearby Orthodox countries.

The papacy’s relations with the stateless Ruthenian-Ukrainian people were mainly ecclesiastical and determined by a religious-political policy geared to each empire to which Ukrainians were subject. From the second half of the 19^th century, as a distinct nation began to manifest itself, the Holy See had to factor Ukraine into its outlook. Religiously, Ukrainians were viewed within a unionistic framework: Greek-Catholics in Austria were looked upon as the protagonists of unionism, and Orthodox Christians in Russian Ukraine were viewed as the object of unionistic hopes. The Holy See had no political hopes for Ukrainians, either in Austria or in Russia.  Better relations with Russia aimed to secure increased freedom for Catholics in the Tsarist Empire. Since Austria-Hungary took Poland’s place as the Catholic state in central-Eastern Europe, the Holy See saw it as an antidote against the encroaching influence of Orthodox Russia. Consequently, Rome did not favor independence for any of Austria’s constituent nationalities. The First World War threw the status quo into chaos and necessitated a reconfiguration of the papal outlook for central-eastern Europe.

Open Diplomacy “Above the parties”

Benedict XV’s pontificate saw a return the grande politique of Leo XIII which he himself had helped Cardinal Rampolla implement, while serving in the Secretariat of State. The policy of patient, free-maneuver diplomacy, independent of political alliances and with diplomatic outreach to all states, was perfectly suited to new states like Ukraine. In his first encyclical letter, the Pope identified nationalistic hatred as one if he principal causes of the war. Nevertheless, as the conflict developed, so Vatican policy  evolved from favoring  a political status quo to one of reserved acceptance of national movements. With Catholics on all sides of conflict demanding papal support, Benedict XV moved from favoring a policy of disinterested neutrality to that of a peacemaker and mediator “above the parties.” His two main diplomatic objectives, general pacification and drawing separated Christians closer to Rome, spoke directly to the Ukrainian situation.

Ukraine between Russian and Austrian/Polish policies

At first, Benedict XV did not have a specific Ukrainian policy. The future of “Ruthenians,” was seen the contexts of the two empires to which they were subject. The Holy See supported the integrity of Austria-Hungary as the strongest Catholic state in central Europe. As to Russia, the Vatican was favorable to autonomy or independence of as many as possible of the nations, due to the Tsarist Empire’s consistent oppression of Catholicism. This was especially true for Poland, the largest portion of which had been partitioned to Russia. During the war, the Holy See took up Polish cause and the pope included it his 1917 Peace Note. When it became clear that the Austrian Empire could not be salvaged, the Vatican turned to Poland as a substitute Catholic power. Following Polish independence, Rome situated Ukrainians between its Polish and Russian policies.

The Turning Point of Revolution

The 1917 Revolutions in Russia marked a turned-point for Vatican policy. Since the Provisional Government granted religious freedom, the Roman Curia had to consider the best way of re-introducing, in those vast regions, the Catholic presence which had been suffocated under Tsarist rule. The revolutions strengthened the national movements of Russia’s subject peoples and facilitated their independence. A the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, of February 1918, the Central Powers recognized the newly-proclaimed Ukrainian National Republic and immediately transformed it into a client state.

The euphoria that followed religious freedom in Russia gave rise to “mirages” of union between a number of national Orthodox Churches and Rome. In response to such hopes, Benedict XV established an autonomous department, the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Church, to coordinate Eastern Catholic life and promote unionistic missions. The new office was given significant authority promote and defend the Eastern Catholic Churches. The Oriental Congregation, as it was often referred to, paid careful attention to religious and political affairs of the Ukrainian National Republic as well as those of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholics in Austria.

Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky

Perhaps the most important Eastern-Catholic leader of the period was Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky, Archbishop of Lviv-Halych and primate of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church. Of Ruthenian-Polish aristocratic lineage, Sheptytsky chose to return to his eastern roots by enlisting in Basilian Order, one of Leo XIII’s unionist experiments. In the eyes of the Poles who governed Austrian Galicia, his duel pedigree made Sheptytsky ideal for leading the Greek-Catholic Church along a subservient path, at the time when Ukrainian national consciousness was taking hold.

Sheptytsky’s ideals sprang from the Leo XIII’s unionism but matured due to his personal contacts among the Ukrainian, Polish, and Russian elites. In 1907, he obtained unprecedented powers from Pius X, kept secret even from the Secretary of State Cardinal Merry del Val, to begin rebuilding the foundations for Eastern Catholic Churches where they had been suppressed by Russia. Sheptytsky cautiously but also critically supported the Ukrainian national movement in Austrian Galicia.

Only days before the election of Benedict XV, Sheptytsky was arrested by Russian invaders, as a dangerous opponent to Tsarist assimilation plans. Cardinal Gasparri launched an energetic yet fruitless diplomatic campaign for his release. From Siberian captivity, Sheptytsky sent six letters to the new pontiff, outlining his unionist vision for Russia and Ukraine. As soon as he was freed, the metropolitan established a Russian Catholic Exarchate, using the secret faculties granted him by Pius X. Benedict XV tended to favor Sheptytsky’s proposal for a predominantly Byzantine-Rite as opposed to a Latin mission, in post-revolutionary Russia. This view was fiercely opposed by the Poles, who had long held the monopoly over Catholic activities in Russia.

As long as Italy and Austria were at war, Sheptytsky was barred from visiting Rome, to explain his plans to the Pope and prove the authenticity of his special faculties. His first meeting with Benedict XV occurred in February 1921, and it provoked a turning point in Vatican policy. Pope Benedict confirmed the faculties, recognized the bishop that Sheptytsky had consecrated using them, and confirmed the Russian exarch that he had nominated.

The Holy See’s Relations with Ukraine

Until the First World War, Ukrainian representation at the Papal Court was exclusively religious in character. Since the Union of Brest, the Metropolitans of Kyiv maintained a procurator to the Holy See. At the outbreak of the War, Ukrainians began a campaign to bring their still-stateless nation to the attention of the international community. They also entered into direct contact with the Roman Curia and papal diplomatic representatives abroad. Catholic aristocrats from Russian Ukraine, who were friends of Metropolitan Sheptytsky, were among Ukraine’s most ardent promoters.

The most important of these amateur diplomats was Count Michael Tyshkevych. With his vast financial resources and social connections, Tyshkevych moved to Switzerland to promote the Ukrainian cause and was largely responsible for brining it to the attention of the western press. Several qualities also made him an ideal representative to the Vatican: he had a western European education, he was a papal knight, and founder of Catholic associations in Russia. As both the Holy See and Ukraine were seeking international recognition, Tyshkevych sought to promote Ukraine by collaborating with Benedict XV’s ideals: peace and humanitarian diplomacy.

Tyshkevych had already obtained Pius X’s encouragement in founding the Kyiv Peace Association. On 27 December 1914, he approached the papal Secretariat of State for a blessing from the new pontiff, not omitting to ask for support for the suffering Ukrainian nation. On 9 January 1915, Monsignor Pacelli communicated the apostolic blessing with the qualification “(for you and your work),” likely in order to avoid any inference of support for any Ukrainian political cause. On 1 June 1916, Tyshkevych approached Pacelli again, touching on another of Pope Benedict’s key policies: church unity. He told Pacelli that both Catholic and Orthodox Ukrainians of Austria and Russia had asked him to approach him to the their “protector and intermediary” by delivering a confidential memorandum on Ukraine to His Holiness. On 9 June, Pacelli wrote to assure him that he had delivered the document personally.

 In 1917, Count Tyshkevych began to write directly to Cardinal Gasparri. Pope Benedict had launched a collection for the Poles and Lithuanians devastated by the war. On 17 February, Tyshkevych sent a petition asking for a such collection to be initiated for the Ukrainians. In March 1918, he brought greetings to the pontiff from the Association of Romans Catholics in Ukraine, as newly-elected head of their association. He also presented a memorandum in support of the Treaty of Brest-Litowsk’s controversial award of the disputed Kholm region to the nascent Ukrainian Republic.

The Ukrainian State was slow to make use of the Catholic notables that had promoted its cause abroad.  Only on 1 September 1918 did Tyshkevych ask the Holy See to accept an official Ukrainian representative. However, after the signing of the Brest Treaty, the Germans occupied Ukraine and turned it into a satellite state, recognized only by the Central Powers. Given the uncertainly of the war’s outcome, Cardinal Gasparri preferred to “defer this project, for a time.”

Michael Tyshkevych having failed, another Catholic aristocrat took up the cause. In October 1918, Jan Tokarzewski-Karaszewicz, who was serving as attaché to the Ukrainian consulate in Vienna, approached the Apostolic Visitor to Poland, Achille Ratti, on the matter of Vatican-Ukrainian relations. With the fall of Austria-Hungary, 8 November 1918 Benedict XV gave orders for his representatives to establish relations with the nationalities. In March 1919 Tokarzewski went to see the Nuncio in Vienna and informed him that his government had decided to send a three-man diplomatic mission to the Holy See, headed by Count Tyshkevych. Tokarzewski suggested that diplomatic relations were necessary due to the possibilities for Catholicism in predominantly Orthodox Ukraine. On 12 March 1919, the Ukrainian consul in Berne asked Monsignor Maglione to transmit an official request for a diplomatic mission to be accredited to the Holy See. 

Cardinal Gasparri responded to Maglione on 26 March 1919, that the Holy See would be particularly happy to enter into diplomatic relations with Ukraine, especially in view of its promised freedom for Catholicism. However, it did not accord full relations to new countries that had not been recognized by the Great Powers (meaning the Entente). In the meantime, only Tyshkevych, deemed “acceptable, being already in relations with the Papal Court,” was to be received in the role of semi-official envoy. The UNR regarded the  acceptance of Tyshkevych’s mission as recognition by the Holy See of the Ukrainian State. In reality, it merely represented a de facto recognition of the UNR Government and a gesture of good will, in the hope that, if the state would survive, the Church would be accorded the promised religious freedom.

Michael Tyshkevych spent virtually two years educating the Holy See about the Ukrainian national cause, promising a bright future for Catholicism in Ukraine, and reporting on the political and humanitarian challenges faced by the nascent republic. He was received several times by curial officials and, on 26 May 1919, by Benedict XV himself. The pontiff assured him that he supported “the autonomy of Ukraine” and had asked his representative at the Peace Conference to defend the Ukrainian cause. From August 1919, Tyshkevych took charge of the UNR delegation at the Paris Peace Conference, during which time he did not neglecting his Vatican contacts. He pursued a fruitless quest for full diplomatic recognition through 1920. The Pope’s promise to support Ukraine at the Paris Conference was confirmed by Cardinal Gasparri on 20 July 1920.

Achille Ratti and the Polish-Ukrainian War

Six month before the First World War’s end, Benedict XV sent Vatican Librarian Achille Ratti to Warsaw as Apostolic Visitor, to resuscitate the Polish Church, devastated from over a century of Russian rule. Ratti’s mission was soon extended to include Russia and formerly Austrian Galicia. By November 1918, his visitation technically included all the lands which the Ukrainians declared to be part of their national state.

In the conflict between Poles and Ukrainians, Benedict XV’s predictions about nationalistic hatred came true, and his stance as mediator “above the parties” was put to the test. Following the collapse of the Habsburg Monarchy, the two nations fought over the sovereignty of Eastern Galicia. A national conflict became a religious feud between Roman-Catholic Poles and the Greek-Catholic Ukrainians. Each side was supported in their political aspirations by their respective hierarchies and clergies, and each called the Holy See to support the rightness of their cause. Ratti declared that the Pope supported both peoples but left political judgments to the politicians. He intervened with authorities from both sides on behalf of those who had been harshly treated. Although publically combatting ingrained prejudice against the Eastern Churches, privately and to his superiors he expressed relief at the Polish victory in Galicia. 

In the end, the Polish-Ukrainian War had affected Achille Ratti’s idealistic perceptions. By the time of his appointment as Apostolic Nuncio to Poland, in July 1919, his attitude toward Polish Catholicism had become more critical, especially regarding its attitude toward national minorities and strong aversion to the Eastern Rites. Any correctives that Ratti offered the Poles went largely unnoticed to the vanquished Ukrainians, who were forced to endure harsh repression. Complaints about the persecution of Greek-Catholics prompted the Roman Curia to rethink its position regarding an envoy for Ukrainian affairs.

Apostolic Visitation to Ukraine

In consultation with the Roman Catholic hierarchy, Ukrainian diplomats had first asked for an apostolic visitation on 14 September 1918. Achille Ratti encouraged Jan Tokarzewski-Karaszewicz to petition Holy See and even declared himself willing to perform the visitation personally. He also signaled his approval for Tyshkevych to be appointed envoy to the Holy See. Despite this, Tyshkevych voiced Ukrainian dissatisfaction with Ratti’s alleged bias toward the Poles. From May through October 1919, Tyshkevych and Tokarzewski did not cease to petition for the appointment of an apostolic visitor to Ukraine and Eastern Galicia, and the exclusion of Ratti from this charge.

The internal situation in the Ukrainian Republic was only one factor impeding an apostolic visitation. Reports continued to arrive at the Vatican of persecution of Ukrainians in Galicia, at the hands of the victorious Poles. In one such report, of April 1919, Achille Ratti expressed his own fears that the Poles intended to eliminate the Greek-Catholic Church altogether. In September, the Government threatened to recall its ambassador if the Holy See “ruled in favor of the Ukrainians.”

A summary of the Galician situation was brought to Benedict XV on 28 January 1920. The Oriental Congregation concluded that an unbiased inspection was necessary, in order to verify the reports and provide humanitarian aid. A purely religious mission was proposed without political connotations, which would show interest in Ukrainians affairs without provoking diplomatic rupture with the Poles. On 13 February, Benedict XV appointed Giovanni Genocchi as apostolic visitor to Ukraine. His shrewd judgment and diplomatic finesse were esteemed by the diplomats of Rampolla school, including his old classmate, Pope Benedict.

Genocchi’s instructions outlined three main aspects of his mission. The first was public: the visitation was a benevolent gesture, especially in the form of medical aid to devastated Ukrainian people. The second was not public: to prepare terrain for the Catholic Church in Ukraine. And the third was secret: to verify the persecution and help the Greek-Catholic Church in Polish-administered Eastern Galicia. Genocchi was told that “the Holy See has no reason to be opposed to the Ukrainians’ demands for statehood, if they are able to practically maintain their independence and if it is recognized by the international community, and looks benevolently on their efforts, which it hopes will be advantageous for Catholicism.” The visitor was told to emphasize the equality of the Latin and Byzantine Catholic Rites, to establish the facts in Galicia and relay them to Holy See, which would bring them to attention of Poland at an opportune time. On his way from Rome, Genocchi met with Ukrainian representatives in Paris, Vienna, and Warsaw. He spoke Metropolitan Sheptytsky six times in Vienna and was impressed by his integrity and holiness.  

Hitherto the Warsaw Nunciature had been responsible for Ukrainian affairs. As the visitor had to travel through Poland, the Secretariat of State asked Ratti to take Genocchi’s mission under his wing. But unbeknown to the Vatican, Genocchi was arriving at the worst possible moment. Before he could reach Lviv, the Poles took control of his mission. Marshall Pilsudski had concluded an alliance with UNR and was in the midst of liberating it from Bolshevik rule. En route to Lviv, Genocchi was summoned to Warsaw where he was told that Pilsudski had decided that he should wait until military victories made it safe for him to go to Kyiv. Ratti promised to personally accompany him in June, Pilsudski promised to pay the journey, and Bishop Dubowski of Lutsk promised them hospitality, along the way.

Polish hopes came to naught. By the end of June, the Bolsheviks had begun  a counter-attack that would lead them to the very gates of Warsaw. As the government abandoned the capital, Ratti sent Genocchi to Vienna where, on 14 September 1920, the visitor submitted a full report to Pope Benedict. One of Genocchi’s conclusions was that “many Ukrainians feel abandoned by the Holy See because it does not [intervene to] stop the Polish persecutions.” Due to his forthright evaluations, future primate of Poland, Father August Hlond, told Genocchi that he would not be welcomed back to Poland anytime soon. The most concrete result of the apostolic visitation was the aide provided: 150,000 Italian Lire via the Red Cross for Ukrainian children, 131 cases of medicine worth 100,000 Lire, 50,000 Lire to the destitute Greek-Catholic clergy in Galicia. From Vienna, he also sent 220,000 Marks for the Latin Bishops in Ukraine, and for Greek-Catholic bishops and religious in Eastern Galicia.

Perhaps as significant as humanitarian diplomacy were the reports which the visitor sent to Rome. Genocchi’s judgments, and those of others, led Benedict XV to make more than one clamorous gestures in support of Ukrainians. On 24 February 1921, the pontiff addressed a public letter to Metropolitan Sheptytsky, ostensibly upon the re-opening of the Ruthenian College in Rome. The letter was actually a solemn act of solidary with the Ukrainian people and contained allusions to religious persecution under Polish mandate. Even Genocchi was shocked by the strength of the protest and by the fact that his mission had been cited publically. Against counsels of prudence from the Secretariat of State, Pope Benedict insisted that this letter be published in the June 1921 fascicle of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. As a result, Poland made good on its promise and recalled its ambassador to the Holy See. Then, on 16 July 1921, the pope lectured the Polish Episcopate in another public letter, admonishing them to manifest universal charity for their fellow clergy of different nationalities and rites. By the end of the year, the Polish press was reporting that Cardinal Gasparri had advised the new Polish ambassador not to upset the Holy Father by saying anything against “his beloved Ukrainians.”

The Bolshevik takeover of Ukraine precluded the possibility that Father Genocchi would be able to carry out his mission. In December 1921, he asked to be recalled on condition that the Visitation to Ukraine continue, at least on paper, as a gesture of solidarity. Upon his arrival in Rome, in January 1922, Benedict XV insisted on receiving him immediately, despite the fact that the pontiff was in his last illness and died a few days after the audience. Elected to the papacy as Pius XI, Achille Ratti retained Genocchi as his official Ukrainian advisor and sent him back to Eastern Galicia for one more visitation. In gratitude for Genocchi’s efforts, the UNR government-in-exile sent a delegation to his funeral, in 1926.

Friends and Failed Dreams

The Entente’s politics of “might makes right” prevailed over Wilson’s principals of national self-determination and over Benedict XV’s ethics which opposed a peace dictated to the vanquished by the victors. Ukraine arose from the ashes of the War, but it’s foes were too powerful and its allies to few. Nonetheless, it was destined to remain nominally on the map as “the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic,” a concession to the national movement that even Lenin was hard-pressed to refuse.

Benedict XV made a place for Ukraine in his Pax Romana, his ethical peace with the Papacy as mediator and magister. Througout the long history of its travails, Ukraine never forgot that he was one of the few leaders who showed it any kindness. When Giaccomo della Chiesa died, in January 1922, condolences arrived at the Holy See declaring that: “Ukrainians have lost a friend and magnanimous protector,” and a “special benefactor.” Indeed, the same understanding and support for Ukraine was never again to be seen in the Vatican corridors, up to the present day.

Non omnia praetera vulgata hac de re sunt: multa tabulariis sunt, quae cum proferentur, nimium quantum Benedicti sapientiam, iustitiam, constantiam, caritetem illustrabunt.  

—Laudatio Benedicti XV P.M. habita in Aede Xystina (February 1922)